Tweeter exposes Osborne’s “ill informed rubbish”


3:02 pm - April 2nd 2013

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

Featuring @Mattleys, via @willsheaney

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


All I see from my side of the fence is a whole lot of organisations who are dependent on benefits whinging. They depend on the maximum number of people getting benefits, as such people are their customers. It’s like grocers complaining about increases in VAT because the are dependent on people buying as much groceries as possible and VAT diminishes that number.

What a strange thing to say @SadButMadLad – people who are disabled tend to receive benefits because of their disability – they don’t become disabled because they receive benefits. So in fact there is no incentive for these organisations to be dependent on maximum numbers of people getting benefits. Blind people are still blind if their benefits are stopped. Autistic people are still autistic. Sad but Mad Lads are still sad and mad.

When the Chancellor of the Exchequer dismisses all that expert opinion and all those peoples’ experiences, all he does is alienate people.

All he does is alienate experts.

“…a whole lot of organisations who are dependent on benefits whinging.”

– yes the churches, they have always been so dependent [sic] on benefits whinging [sic].

Perhaps if they stopped considering the meek all the time, then they could concentrate on the more important matter of getting Osborne and his well informed Eton chums into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Sad Butt – you are looking at the wrong people to blame.

“Ill informed rubbish”? If one is to avoid being “ill informed” to whom does one turn? Generally I believe the answer to this question is “the experts” – the ones with first hand experience of working in the affected areas. So to become “well informed” what sort of comments do we find when seeking out these expert’s comments? For the answer see earlier posts above. Any who rejects these I would argue are the “ill informed” ones.

6. mike cobley

Did Sadbutmad buy this load of bollocks at a retail outlet, Bollocks-R-Us maybe, or did he homespin it on his DIY bollocks-loom?

Charities have very little to gain from standing up against the status quo, far easier to remain within the huddle. if they feel forced to speak out then something is up. But then, something IS up. Charities don’t just comprise people with a view and no rationale, a representative from one of those listed above has lectured on my Master’s Degree course (about the matter covered not politics). The stories used to promote these cuts are proven bunkum.

The truth is that the cuts are ridiculous and will get more so. promoting work? So how come Universal Credit makes self employment incredibly difficult? For the genuinely disabled? So how come the clause in DLA about needing constant supervision was dropped when devising PIP, is that not an indicator any more? Am I supposed to accompany my son to his place of work each day (and presumably give up my own job) then? Here are some real stats: http://www.jointpublicissues.org.uk/truth-and-lies-about-poverty-infographics/. I am a damned site more qualified to understand the effects of disability on people than IDS I can assure you, both through life experience and actual academic training! And I understand that self employment is a major route out of difficulty, that carers and the disabled are petrified, that this country deserves more than an overpaid PR Exec as PM, or CV-faker as Minister.

It’s times like this when we I wish we could just petition to have George Osborne sacked. Democracy in the UK is such a shame. A vote makes so little difference in many constituencies.

9. Derek Hattons Tailor

@5 It’s obvious to me that organisations representing disadvantaged groups have a vested interest in those groups being as large as possible – more clients, more power, more influence, more funding, more self-importance.

Many people think one of things that has gone wrong with politics is the huge gap between politicians of all hues, and ordinary people. A gap that has increasingly been filled by pressure groups, special advisors, think tanks, quangos, pseudo charities etc. Whatever happened to politicians having convictions and implementing them through policy ? That is what they are for. If they need advice then get it from an impartial source (Traditionally this was the role of the civil service before Blair politicized/outsourced it). If policy is dictated by “experts” then what you get is government by pressure group, with politicians role confined to balancing off their conflicting interests. It is the opposite of joined up government, it is not representative democracy, and it begs the question, what is the point of politicians or of voters ? Just put economists in charge of the economy, doctors in charge of the NHS etc etc.

Presumably you think it’s a good thing that Cameron asked the CEO of JCB (one of the worlds largest excavator manufacturers) for his input on reform of planning, or the big 4 accountants for advice on reforming tax law ? Perhaps you think bankers should be asked to draft banking regulation ? All of these groups have “first hand experience working in the affected area” so why should they not have their voice heard ?

10. andrew adams

It’s obvious to me that organisations representing disadvantaged groups have a vested interest in those groups being as large as possible – more clients, more power, more influence, more funding, more self-importance.

In that case surely groups representing the homeless, the poor, the disabled etc should be welcoming the government’s measures because they will certainly have a lot more people demanding their services as a result.

Someone referred to the ‘haves and have not’ is that the same as saying those on ‘full state benefit and those who are not’?

12. DumbToryNarrative

SadButMadLAd- So you’re mad but still sad? Suicide is still an option for Ayn Randist far-right “libertarian” lunatics like you.

All i see is a (possibly) self-employed right-wing nutcase who needs to be transparent about his financial transactions.

Good little disability denying right-wing bastard.

13. Keith Reeder

“All I see from my side of the fence is a whole lot of organisations who are dependent on benefits whinging.”

Well you might want to get your head out from wherever it’s currently lodged, and have a good hard look at the REAL world…

14. Keith Reeder

“It’s obvious to me that organisations representing disadvantaged groups have a vested interest in those groups being as large as possible – more clients, more power, more influence, more funding, more self-importance. ”

AKA Cameron’s “Big Society”?

15. Man on the Clapham Omnibus

With all the mention of the benifit cuts no-one seems to have noticed the total collapse of Legal Aid such that women suffering domestic violence are effectively no longer protected by the law. Further, a parent whose children are taken by their (ex)spouse, typically after arranged contact, are no longer protected. Similarly, women ejected from the martital home, even if they are forced to leave the kids behind, are not included as things stand.

Peachy :

“So how come the clause in DLA about needing constant supervision was dropped when devising PIP, is that not an indicator any more? Am I supposed to accompany my son to his place of work each day (and presumably give up my own job) then?”

Well, the “logic” obviously goes “DLA is a lot about what people with disabilities and chronic illnesses can’t do for themselves, or do as easily as the majority; but PIP, as the clever new name suggests, is all about what people with disabilities and chronic illnesses ‘can do’ so the last thing we would have as an indicator in any assessment test was something that allowed the person being assessed as incapable of doing anything for themselves, because we want an assessment system that quite clearly and of course entirely fairly, shows that everyone is capable of doing things fro themselves, and that we can therefore achieve massive savings in the amounts we have been paying out to people who have conspired to trick us into believing they needed more help than they really do”. It is quite simple if you can get yourself into the mindset of the sort of person that Iain Duncan Smith would have working for him as a SpAd, or for his ahem independent think tank, the Centre for, double ahem, Social Justice …


Reactions: Twitter, blogs




Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.